Unicode fundamental character identity

[Peter Constable]

Let me clarify my last message: I was responding to a statement you had made in your previous message:

> I suspect there is some lobbying involved. This is potentially dangerous because of the possibility that lobbying will eventually affect the interpretation of stability policies, which would effectively result in actual compatibility breaking changes.

I take this concern seriously. As Doug Ewell has just suggested, this appears to be an accusation of malfeasance.

However, I have seen no evidence of any _lobbying_ against the proposal in L2/25-037. It was reviewed by experts in the UTC Script Encoding Working Group (SEW) who concluded that they did find convincing evidence of a need to encode any additional characters. The SEW recommendations were then review by UTC which did not find differently. There were no other lobbyists.

Nobody else here has been discussing this topic besides you, me and Gabriel Tellez who stated, “None of those listed are differences in plain text…”, which aligns with what the SEW concluded. That single comment isn’t what I’d call lobbying. My prior comments on your statements have only been that emoji and source separation are not relevant to this topic; and I did not materially contribute to the SEW recommendations on L2/25-037; so I don’t see myself to be lobbying. You have continued to speak up in defense of L2/25-037 (as is your prerogative); that is the only activity I’ve seen that resembles lobbying.

As Doug Ewell also very wisely said, accusing others of malfeasance “is usually not an effective way to influence encoding decisions.”


Peter



From: Unicode <unicode-bounces at corp.unicode.org> On Behalf Of piotrunio-2004 at wp.pl via Unicode
Sent: January 31, 2025 9:21 AM
To: unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org>
Subject: Odp: RE: Re: Re: Unicode fundamental character identity



Dnia 31 stycznia 2025 17:20 piotrunio-2004 at wp.pl<mailto:piotrunio-2004 at wp.pl> <piotrunio-2004 at wp.pl<mailto:piotrunio-2004 at wp.pl>> napisał(a):


Dnia 31 stycznia 2025 17:14 Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com<mailto:pgcon6 at msn.com>> napisał(a):

AFAICT, you are the only one lobbying on this topic.





Are you just going to be dismissing reasonable arguments like that?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20250131/c1622c0d/attachment.htm>